Mergers and acquisitions are often framed as high-stakes business events. Strategy. Valuation. Due diligence. Negotiation. But talk to any executive who has actually lived through one, and a different story emerges. The hardest part isn’t the deal. It’s the people.
On this episode of Life + Leadership, Maggie Gough sits down with Tegan Trovato to unpack what really happens inside leadership teams during M&A. And what becomes clear, quickly, is that while the spreadsheets may drive the transaction, it’s the emotional, relational and psychological dynamics that determine whether it succeeds or falls apart.
Because behind every deal is a group of humans navigating uncertainty, identity shifts and sustained pressure over months — often years. And most of them aren’t prepared for what that actually feels like.
There’s a moment early in the conversation where Tegan names the truth most leaders don’t expect. The business side of M&A is easier than the human side. It sounds counterintuitive. After all, deals are complex, due diligence is intense and outcomes are uncertain. But those elements, while challenging, are structured. They follow patterns. There are playbooks. People don’t.
“The deal is technical. People are emotional.” And that emotional complexity shows up everywhere. Leaders who believe they are highly adaptable — comfortable with ambiguity, experienced in change — suddenly find themselves stretched in ways they didn’t anticipate. Not because they lack capability, but because everyone is going through the change at the same time, under pressure, with real personal stakes attached. That’s what makes M&A different. It’s not just change. It’s collective, high-stakes, identity-altering change.
To understand why M&A is so taxing, Tegan breaks down the experience into three simultaneous pressures that executive teams carry throughout the process.
This is the one that gets underestimated and the one that does the most damage when ignored. Executives are navigating anxiety about the future, fear of losing status, influence or role clarity, deep attachment to the company they’ve helped build and questions about personal financial outcomes. These aren’t abstract concerns. They are deeply human ones. And they don’t stay contained — they spill into every conversation, every decision and every relationship.
At the same time, the work doesn’t stop. Leaders are running the business as usual, managing relentless due diligence requests, keeping performance metrics strong under scrutiny and supporting their teams through uncertainty. It’s not just more work, it’s a second full-time job layered on top of an already demanding one And that strain doesn’t just impact the leaders. It extends to their teams, their families and the entire organization.
Then there’s the dynamic inside the team itself. Power shifts. Communication frays. Sensitivity increases. Decisions feel heavier because the stakes are higher and because there’s less room for error. At the same time, leaders are often operating with incomplete information, which makes alignment harder and misinterpretation more likely. It becomes, as Tegan describes it, a really tough dance.
“Because in the end, deals don’t succeed or fail on spreadsheets alone. They succeed or fail on whether the people leading them can navigate the pressure together.”
One of the most powerful ideas in the conversation is the concept of liminality. It’s the space between worlds, when the old way of operating is no longer viable, but the new reality hasn’t fully taken shape. In M&A, this doesn’t happen once. It happens repeatedly. When the decision to pursue M&A is made. During cycles of diligence and failed deals. After the deal is signed but before integration is complete.
Executives can spend years in this in-between state. It’s a place of ambiguity, stalled momentum and psychological strain. You’ve committed to a future you can’t yet step into.
And over time, that takes a toll. One of the biggest risks is that leaders begin to normalize this state — forgetting that it’s temporary, and failing to adjust expectations or capacity accordingly.
Under sustained stress, even high-performing executive teams begin to show cracks. Trust starts to erode. Conversations become more defensive. Information gets held back instead of shared. Emotional overwhelm shows up in different ways. Some leaders snap. Others withdraw. And sometimes, the most overwhelmed teams are the quietest ones, sitting in silence because no one has the capacity to engage.
Decision-making becomes slower and less clear. Teams second-guess themselves, overanalyze risk or avoid decisions altogether. Roles blur. This is especially true in founder-led organizations, where founders may feel a strong pull to regain control during the process — stepping into areas they’ve long since delegated. And communication breaks down. Side conversations increase. Meetings become transactional. Transparency fades.
None of this happens because leaders are incapable. It happens because they are operating under prolonged, compounding stress without the support structures to sustain it.
This is where the role of a specialized executive coach becomes critical. Not as a luxury, but as a stabilizing force.
A strong coach doesn’t just facilitate meetings. They actively manage the emotional and relational health of the team throughout the process. They surface what isn’t being said. They help leaders process personal stakes privately. They intervene in moments of miscommunication before they escalate. At times, they act as a translator helping one leader understand another’s intent. At others, they are a stabilizer, reminding the team of their commitments and pulling them back to their best selves when stress begins to take over.
And in the most intense phases, they function as something even more specific: An emotional risk manager.
Because small relational breakdowns, left unchecked, don’t stay small. They compound. And in some cases, they can derail the deal entirely.
While executive teams are navigating all of this internally, the organization is watching closely. And what employees need from leadership during M&A is remarkably consistent.
One of the most common mistakes executives make is confiding too much in their direct reports. While it may feel like a release, it often has the opposite effect of creating fear in people who don’t yet have the context or experience to process what they’re hearing. Leadership, in this moment, requires containment.
M&A will likely be one of the most demanding experiences an executive team goes through.
Not because it’s complex — though it is. But because it requires leaders to operate at a high level across business execution, emotional regulation and relational discipline simultaneously, for an extended period of time. And that’s not something most teams are prepared for by default. But it is something they can prepare for intentionally.
By acknowledging the human side of the process. By creating structures that support communication and alignment. By investing in their own regulation and resilience. And by bringing in the right support at the right time. Because in the end, deals don’t succeed or fail on spreadsheets alone. They succeed or fail on whether the people leading them can navigate the pressure together.